Poll: GOP 2016 pick a 4-way split

I would vote for Paul or Cruz. They actually believe in freedom and the constitution.

Bush will give u more police state.

Christie seems like a decent guy, but really has no plans that will give people back their freedom. I can see him just going along to get along. Business as usual.

reply to post by Indigo5


Vomit bags, Bush and The Fat Bastard from NJ. Both worthless turds.

reply to post by The Vagabond


I think you're discounting that HIllary doesn't need any crossover votes to win, and just about anything that the GOP had to throw at her they already did and in the eyes of the American public not only did she triumph over it, they ended up looking like fools... unfortunately for us (because it will be maintain the status quo) the Presidency is hers.

reply to post by Kali74


Its not a matter of crossover votes in my mind, it's a matter of base turnout in key states. Hillary can set all kinds of records in places like New York and California, but she's going to mobilize more Republicans than Democrats in places like North Carolina, creating at the very least a much closer race than anything Obama faced.

The thing about Obama was that he got the attention of people who weren't excited about being Democrats before and created a race in places that don't usually have much of one- that's not the case with Hillary.

Also I disagree that they've already hit her with everything they had and that it was proven ineffective. They haven't had to run against her yet- she's never been in a nation wide general election. All that has been proven is that you can't chase Democrats away from her. We really don't have much way of knowing what might happen to Republican turnout when we're potentially one day away from President Hillary, but my guess is it's going to be impressive.

Actually Rand is center right which is close to libertarian in limited government and socially liberal. Cruz is a little left to the center right because of his religious leanings.

The Far right is anarchist which is none of them. I hate it when people get this wrong.

Im voting for Rand.

Christie doesn't really have a stance on anything, except he is pro amnesty. He will lose a lot of votes from conservatives. More of a business as usual candidate.

Rand is anti amnesty, but will allow illegals currently in the US to stay but have to wait in line for citizenship.

Everything points to Clinton winning. But Rand may have a chance if he can ignite a liberty movement that will bring in third parties and disillusioned democrats.

reply to post by amfirst1

I hate it when people get this wrong.

Me too. It's a huge pet peeve of mine. So I'm leaving this here for you because in all my political and ideological study, I've never come across anyone that said Anarchy belonged to the Right and religious zealotry was Left.

There have been questions about whether Chris Christie will be able to win over the core conservative/tea party segment of the Republican party. Fact is, whoever the GOP nominee turns out to be 2016 or whoever has the best chance against Hilldog, all GOPers, including Tea Partiers, most of em' at least, will vote for that nominee and put support behind. This thing about certain GOP candidates not being "conservative enough" is all a show at the end of the day to flex muscles within the party. In the end so long as there's an "R" against Hillary, most rightwing voters will rally. In 2012 elections 37% of votes for Romney was against Obama, similar kind of number in 2008 for "moderate" McCain and it will be the same whether or not Chris Christie gains the nomination in 2016:
www.mediaite.com...

So Chris Christie only needs to play the game with the tea party, be patronizing, and he should have a decent shot at the nomination come 2016... that is providing he keeps his plate relatively clean between now and then.

Ted Cruz? He's just there for show to excite the interests of tea partiers in the GOP.
Rand Paul? He's appealing to the Libertarian wing while also trying to get a piece of the Tea party pie.
Jeb Bush? Doesn't have a chance. Too much family baggage and I'd bet my money on that come 2016...
Jindal and Rubio? They can better spend their time focusing on their political careers because they ain't getting the presidency.

I'm writing in Ron Paul. We don't need anymore people like governor Christy.

Chris Christie is the ONLY option the GOP has to get the swing vote in 2016. If he was the Republican candidate, I would vote for him at this point. None of the other three holds any interest to me. Any of them and I automatically vote democrat.

ltheghost
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So to clear this up...The GOP has no one who can win. Hilary would mop the floor with all of them. I don't like Hilary but I know she is no lightweight. This is going to get ugly in 2016. I'm calling for a blow out.

I honestly hope not, but that is the way it is looking. Christie has the best hope in a general election IMO and the current polls, though they can change.

The far right candidates...all politics aside....can win a primary, but can not win a general election. That is just the reality of the population.

I would pick Hillary amongst the current slate of likely candidates, but I also strongly hope for better choices...from both sides of the spectrum.

More choices...better decisions....and when we have strong candidates in a close race, it forces more public debate and discourse and we as a country need to start making the big decisions. Those tough questions won't be debated if it is a lopsided contest.

Ouch...
Those are y'alls picks ?
Good luck... I think I'd go with CC.
Although I know most of you think Hitler 2.0 is the better candidate.
and T Cruz? How? How is a Canadian Born Birther who wants you to think
he's a Texan going to be eligible? We know his birth certificate is real
and is not of this country. Irony....

The Vagabond
I'm not convinced the Hillary would be unbeatable for the Republicans. Her name does to the right what the Bush name does to the left

Not at all. After the second term of Pres. GWB even the right ran from the Bush legacy, distancing themselves from the wars, economic crisis and bailouts...whilst those same republicans began to cite the Clinton years as an example of bipartisanship and a President that was willing to work with the other side of the aisle...(welfare reform etc.) ...and indisputably the two administrations oversaw two very different times in our country, with the Clinton years being economically prosperous without overt wars and invasions.

The Vagabond
- any nameless joe on the right who nobody would get excited about voting for could outperform expectations with his base just because he is running against someone Republicans love to hate.

Sure...just like last time..Quick, Dramatic, flashes in the pan...."The Cain Train"!

The Vagabond
Not only that, she's saddled with Obama's legacy, which is equally offensive to right wing sensibilities.

Oh...the right wing will never vote for a Dem anyways? Clinton doesn't need the right, nor does she expect to earn the right's votes. She needs the left and middle. If there was any danger of her association with Pres. Obama dragging her down with the middle, she stepped out of the Administration in Feb....buying her plenty of distance if she needs it before 2016.

The Vagabond
Meanwhile Hillary actually left a bad taste in the mouths of some democrats when she tried to take Obama's nomination through the super delegates, in defiance of the popular vote in the primaries. Furthermore after Obama failed to roll back the Bush police state, I don't think it's going to be easy to get young idealists on the left to mobilize again.

She doesn't need to mobilize young idealists, and neither did Pres. Obama last year. The Far Right does it for them.

The Vagabond
Last but not least, Hillary Clinton is now not just a woman, but a white haired old woman. For all the progress we've made, we still haven't actually had a woman win a nation wide election in this country yet. God knows Palin deserved every mean-spirited thing that was said about her plus a few additional things that I forced myself not to say, but she still did prove the point that even among liberals, stereotypes against women in politics are not completely off limits yet.

Seeing as the majority of the US Population is women and women vote more than men?...53% ... Stereotypes or not, I think anyone playing to those stereotypes is going to get their ass handed to them.

How did "binders full of women" sell with Romney?

The Vagabond
It wouldn't take as strong a challenger as Obama was in 2008 to upset Hillary yet again and finally doom her to remain only a footnote in American political history. There is even a remote chance that a dark horse could beat her in the primaries if conditions were right.

Again...I do hope Hillary has a decent challenger in the primaries, but I don't see it yet. More choices are better.

Southern Guardian
. In the end so long as there's an "R" against Hillary, most rightwing voters will rally.

Yes...like McCain, like Romney...BUT what interests me is the knee jerk reaction of some on the far right that think Romney lost because he was not CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH. The idea he lost because he was too liberal. It is the growing split in the GOP. This GOP primary will test that growing division....PRIMARY...cuz the nominee must be nominated first. Since the Money has dramatically moved to the center of the GOP in the last few months, and recent elections ..Virginia and NJ etc. have shown moderates or democrats winning...I think the GOP will "get it", but we will see.

Southern Guardian
So Chris Christie only needs to play the game with the tea party, be patronizing, and he should have a decent shot at the nomination come 2016... that is providing he keeps his plate relatively clean between now and then.

This is what will make it interesting. Christie is not good at pandering. He is blunt and sometimes short tempered. I am not sure he is capable of patronizing the TP sufficiently.

reply to post by The Vagabond

Its not a matter of crossover votes in my mind, it's a matter of base turnout in key states. Hillary can set all kinds of records in places like New York and California, but she's going to mobilize more Republicans than Democrats in places like North Carolina, creating at the very least a much closer race than anything Obama faced.

This exact same argument was used for the 2012 election...that Obama would mobilize more Republicans to vote against him than he could get his own base to turn out...and we see how that worked out.

The fact is that Hillary would win in a landslide. She has the base support and she will be the first woman President. Like it or not, you are going to get a huge turnout just because of that...the young voters will come out in mass to push the first female President, women will come out in mass to push the first female President, Obama will stump for her and he will get those voters that only started voting because of Obama...it will honestly be a total landslide...she will win by more than Obama.

It's demographics...the Republicans are on the wrong side of it. The only way for Republicans to win a Presidential election anytime soon is if the Democrats ran a very boring candidate (like Kerry) and the Republicans run a moderate. But that isn't going to happen for 2016...it is going to be Hillary going up against an extreme Right Winger that will scare away a portion of the Republicans base.

It'll be Hillary vs Christie in 2016. Book it. This is such a divided country, the GOP will realize the only way to regain the White House is to put up a RINO. Christie has proven in the most recent election he can get the women's vote despite being a pro-lifer, minority blacks and Hispanics, etc., all in a Democratic state (NJ). This isn't to say that the tea-PARTIERS won't push their agenda once he's in there, but for now they're just concerned about getting a Repub in there.

Oh, and if Hillary gets in, we'll look back fondly at the good old Obama days. Hillary won't win because Benghazi will be put out there and not even 10% of the full story is out yet.

UnBreakable
It'll be Hillary vs Christie in 2016. Book it.

Where did the vomit emoticon go?


All I have to say is Barf.

luciddream
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Who are the democrat picks? i know Hillary is in there.

Some politicos are saying Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary. She's not as divisive and is knowledgeable about banking, budget, finance, etc.

news.yahoo.com...

UnBreakable


Oh, and if Hillary gets in, we'll look back fondly at the good old Obama days. Hillary won't win because Benghazi will be put out there and not even 10% of the full story is out yet.

Perhaps, but by the time the elections roll around Benghazi will just be a historical footnote.

I think the Campaign that Hillary will put forth will be a masterpiece; the GOP won't have a chance in hell of overcoming Ms C; whomever they choose as a candidate. The corporations have chosen her and the campaign coffers are already overflowing. They don't even care if the Tparty, GOP, or any of the other 3rd parties try and mount an offensive.

Expect a Hollywood styled pretty boy for her running mate, probably a Hispanic. The Obama campaign of years past will look shoddy compared to the coming spectacle from the DNC.

reply to post by Indigo5


That's great except Christie isn't really a Republican. That's probably why the media loves him so much. I'd select Cruz first, Paul second.

reply to post by olaru12


Can't wait.............another Clinton or Bush in the White House after 30 years.